i love how the romneybots have already come out and said that obama's response is "craven" when in fact he condemned it harshly. way to turn the death of an american patriot into a political point, you scumbags.

btw - what time did the incident occur, and what time does the NYT go to print? that might account for the lack of headline in the PRINT edition. i see that the online edition is leading with the killing.

FlashHarry:i love how the romneybots have already come out and said that obama's response is "craven"

Headline distinctly says "diplomatic" response.

The White House is disavowing the embassy's Weenerss, but shiat...in the diplomatic world people agonize over the wording of statements. If the White House doesn't like what the embassy said, then clearly they and Cairo are not on the same page.

Gulper Eel:The White House is disavowing the embassy's Weenerss, but shiat...in the diplomatic world people agonize over the wording of statements. If the White House doesn't like what the embassy said, then clearly they and Cairo are not on the same page.

Which is not surprising. In the heat of rapidly changing cultural conditions and self-preservation, there are likely to be miscommunications between an Administration and its embassies. And Romney is just being a dick. In 2008 Obama closed ranks with Bush when issues came up--saying "we have one president and one administration at a time." Romney doesn't even have the principles to do that.

skinnycatullus:Gulper Eel: With some blubbering about abusing the freedom of speech.

That statement was issued before any attack took place, so I'm not sure how that can reasonably be considered a response to the attacks.

The embassy response was before the riot? It was just about the film outrage? That gives it some perspective. Still a stupid apology for a private citizens YouTube video. But not a response to the riots right or wrong. Are you sure?

I_C_Weener:The embassy response was before the riot? It was just about the film outrage? That gives it some perspective. Still a stupid apology for a private citizens YouTube video. But not a response to the riots right or wrong. Are you sure?

I_C_Weener:skinnycatullus: Gulper Eel: With some blubbering about abusing the freedom of speech.

That statement was issued before any attack took place, so I'm not sure how that can reasonably be considered a response to the attacks.

The embassy response was before the riot? It was just about the film outrage? That gives it some perspective. Still a stupid apology for a private citizens YouTube video. But not a response to the riots right or wrong. Are you sure?

I_C_Weener:skinnycatullus: Gulper Eel: With some blubbering about abusing the freedom of speech.

That statement was issued before any attack took place, so I'm not sure how that can reasonably be considered a response to the attacks.

The embassy response was before the riot? It was just about the film outrage? That gives it some perspective. Still a stupid apology for a private citizens YouTube video. But not a response to the riots right or wrong. Are you sure?

So, angry villagers are shopping for pitchforks to attack you for something someone else did, and you think it's stupid to try to diffuse the situation by saying "hey, it wasn't me"?

Jews, Muslims, Dems, GOP, NYT, WSJ, Rinsed Pubis, Deb Wass-Schultz - this is going to be a layer cake of shiat the likes of which we haven't seen since 9/11 (praise be thy name, Never Forget, USA USA, Toby Keith is God, etc).

propasaurus:I_C_Weener: skinnycatullus: Gulper Eel: With some blubbering about abusing the freedom of speech.

That statement was issued before any attack took place, so I'm not sure how that can reasonably be considered a response to the attacks.

The embassy response was before the riot? It was just about the film outrage? That gives it some perspective. Still a stupid apology for a private citizens YouTube video. But not a response to the riots right or wrong. Are you sure?

So, angry villagers are shopping for pitchforks to attack you for something someone else did, and you think it's stupid to try to diffuse the situation by saying "hey, it wasn't me"?

The Front Page of the NYT in Submitter's link. I see nothing anywhere about it.

Dear dumbass and tardmitter and all butthurt knuckledraggers, you do realize that papers are printed on a deadline, don't you? And said events may have occured after said deadline. And that even Obama and his magical time machine can't go back and change a paper once it's printed. You do realize these things, don't you?????